Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, thereferences are in the link. Let me know what you find.
Quote:
The 9th circuit court ruling, that you posted, regards whether a person has the right to refuse a full body search if they are not going to board an airplane. I consider that a ruling an infringement of the 4th Amendment if they did not obtain a warrant for this search.
It's cool that you have your personal opinon, but the courts have a different opinion. The courts ruled it a "reasonable" search, and therefore constitutional.
What does searching and verifying the status of someone already in the country have to do with searching and verifying the status of someone entering the country. When I go to Mexico or Canada I have to show a passport and to get back in I have to show a passport. If I'm walking down the street I'm not going to show my ID to anyone.
The bold is a search with out probable cause. You've stated that you did not want to give up any freedoms. So unless you object to them checking your passport, you at least to a certain extent agree with some form of "unconstitutional searches". You can not identify a US citizen when coming into this country with out conducting a "search with out probable cause".
I think we can put you on the record for choosing to give up a constitutional freedom for safety.
Wrong. I refute the premise. You do not understand the Constitution, nor do you understand pragmatism. There is nothing inherently absolute other than death. It's sad that, me being a libertarian, will have to show you how governmental security is needed to a certain extent.
OK, they are in the link. Let me know what you find.
It's cool that you have your personal opinon, but the courts have a different opinion. The courts ruled it a "reasonable" search, and therefore constitutional.
Not the SCOTUS!
This is what I found in about the SCOTUS's opinion in your link:
Quote:
The Supreme Court has not specifically held that airport screening
searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches.
(found in footnote under section III)
There are about 300 people in a plane, but you bring up a good point. You are free to buy your own plane, and then it will be just you and no one will screen you.
The Supreme Court has held the airport search constitutional, but like I said you are free to buy your own plane and fly with it. I am not willing to sacrofice my life, and the lives of my family members just to satisfy your sensitivities.
Or don't fly. If you feel violated at the airport, then stay the heck away from them.
I keep looking for some post where i said that i was against airport security. What does that have to do with anything?
I said that airlines are a private business, and they should take all of the precautions necessary to protect their business model. If people keep blowing airplanes out of the sky, folks won't fly. So that problem basically takes care of itself market-wise.
But i don't consider that to be the same thing as encroaching on my freedoms. That's only common sense.
Honestly I think some of the things republicans use as a measure for freedom are overrated. I don't mind airport checkpoints, because nobody is forcing anyone to fly anyways. I've heard, but not experienced, that the systems they have in Europe are far superior to ours, that ours are bloated, inefficient, and expensive by comparison. Again I just heard this...
From a libertarian standpoint, I think we have more social freedoms, especially freedom of speech, than ever before. In the past many more things were 'taboo' or could not be said.
Republicans are important to keep our gun rights. That's about it. Other then that they support the drug war, stupid laws on when you can and can't buy alcohol, this idea that we must live a certain 'moral' lifestyle (though I do not personally support partial birth abortions and think it's basically legalized murder) and things of that nature.
Both sides want to take some freedom away. That's why gridlock is good.
I don't want corporations being able to plunder the environment. Corporations need regulations, or they will run amok and do whatever they want (some of them) ... like government, they require checks and balances. Personal freedom is what matters to me, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, right to smoke pot, and do things that might be harmful and I will accept the consequences of those actions.
I used to be a conspiracy nut quazi republican type but no longer, I'm more social libertarian, conservative in some ways, downright socialist in others (health care for everyone is good, but seal up the mexican border first, and regulate the insane cost of medical care)
The republicans trickle down conservatism, and their tendency to want to cut taxes for the top, has irritated me and proved ineffective.. I'd rather cut taxes on the working class first.. having low tax rates all these years has not stopped everything from going to china... what we needed or need is a weak dollar policy, to encourage job growth and not just debt growth. I don't like this idea of taxing the medical care provided in our paychecks though.. I don't know what obama was smoking when he came up with that idea.. talk about a sizable tax increase for every working class person...
We still have one basic problem... and that's fractional reserve zero reserve compound interest banking... if you haven't already, watch the 'money as debt' video and see why we can't pay off our 'debts' and why debt really doesn't matter... to the government at least.
This is what I found in about the SCOTUS's opinion in your link:
Quote:
The Supreme Court has not specifically held that airport screening
searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches.
(found in footnote under section III)
The rulings have been made by federal courts.
PS you "forgot" the rest of the note:]On three occasions, however, the Supreme Court has suggested that airport screening searches are constitutionally reasonable administrative searches. See Miller, 520 U.S. at 323; Edmond, 531 U.S. 47-8. (“Our holding also does not affect the validity of border searches or searches at places like airports and government buildings, where the need for such measures to ensure public safety can be particularly acute.”); Von Raab, 489 U.S. at 675 n.3 (approving of lower court decisions upholding airport screening searches where there was no reason for suspicion).
One of the last times I was at an airport, there was extra security so many Americans were being patted down at the gate -- even after the initial patdown. However Muslims in full Islamic garb were not. Strange, very very strange.
You should have said something. I sure would have. I'm also one who proudly objects to the airport treatment and refuse to fly whenever possible. I wish that the American sheeple would also speak out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
